[PmbPhy]

Turn around Pete. What was the beginning, becomes the end.  If it were eternal in both directions from a specified point, then there would be equal distance in both directions.

It's not meaningful to say that any point is in the middle of an infinite line and the same thing applies to time. Far too many people have the bad habit of thinking that infinite is a number or a distance. It's not. Infinite only has meaning in the sense of a limit. Thus in the expression

lim(x->infinity) [1/x] = 0

"infinity" does not represent a number. All it means is that as x gets larger and larger with no limit the expression f(x) = 1/x gets smaller and smaller and there is no number large enough so that 1/x = 0 or that there's a y = 1/x which for which f(x) cannot be smaller. In calculus infinity has no meaning outside of a limit.

Like infinity, half of eternity cannot be eternity. It must be a finite amount.

No. You couldn't be more wrong. You're ignoring the example I gave.

Mathematically, there may be in infinite number of points, but on more than one occasion, on this forum, people have agreed that infinity is not a number.  I think you may have been one of them.

No. I explained that to mean that its a line which has "infinite length" even thought it has a beginning. There's no question about that mathematically keeping what I said above in mind.

Whatever you might do mathematically; how can you ascribe any meaning to an infinite number of anything.

You keep making the mistake of thinking that "infinite" is a number. Its not. Its far from being a number of any kind.

  But its only half of the real number line.

Half of infinity?
[/quote]
Please learn the meaning of "infinity" since I cringe when I read things like that.

Thanks Pete, you make my point for me. 

No I didn't. You misunderstood what I said.  I said "you can't say that" and that does not mean there's no such concept.
It means its a wrong notion.

[guest45734]

If you say all points in space are connected then each point must be directly connected to every other point. How could objects possibly move.

I have over stepped the forum rules, but to answer your question of which I am sure you know the answer anyway.
Bosons manage to occupy the same spot,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality . All things can be regarded as wave functions. The BB expansion of space and time started with lots of energy in the form of (wave functions perhaps)

[PmbPhy]

I have over stepped the forum rules, but to answer your question of which I am sure you know the answer anyway.
Bosons manage to occupy the same spot,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality.

You mean that they "can" occupy the same place in space, right? So can Fermions.

[Colin2B]

If you say all points in space are connected then each point must be directly connected to every other point. How could objects possibly move.

...... but to answer your question of which I am sure you know the answer anyway.
Bosons manage to occupy the same spot, 

That doesn’t really answer @jeffreyH  question.

All things can be regarded as wave functions. The BB expansion of space and time started with lots of energy in the form of (wave functions perhaps)

Although all things can be described by wavefunctions, again it doesn’t answer @jeffreyH
Also, a wave function isn’t a form of energy

[Bill S (OP)]

You keep making the mistake of thinking that "infinite" is a number. Its not. Its far from being a number of any kind.

Pete, this is precisely what I have been saying for years.  Infinity is not a number. I tend not to use bold type or capitals; I feel that that may be an insult to those reading what I write; but perhaps I need to be more emphatic.

I do not think that infinity is a number.  I accept that it is used in mathematics in a specific and specialised way, but find that mathematicians/scientists tend to behave as though their mathematical use of infinity were the only sense in which anyone had a right to use it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=infinity+is+a+concept+not+a+number&oq=infinity+is+not+a+number&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.19503j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

... In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as either a natural or a real number.

In fact, it is not a number at all.  If I need to state that more clearly, please tell me how you would have me do it.

[guest45734]

You mean that they "can" occupy the same place in space, right?

Yes.

So can Fermions

Fermions are particles are you sure they can occupy the same point in space as another fermion or particle.

How could objects possibly move.

Bosons can move whilst occupying the same space, JeffreyH question was (how could they move) how does my answer not answer jeffreyh question. How would you answer it ?

[evan_au]

Can time emerge?

A related concept (looking through the other end of the telescope): Can time disappear?

Some theories about the long-term future of the universe predict a gradual heat death, or (more violently) a big rip.

In these long-distant times, does time go away? Perhaps there is no way to measure it, if entropy has already reached a maximum?

[guest45734]

Can time disappear?

Space does not exist inside a theoretical wormhole. Can time exist inside a wormhole like an ER bridge.

[Bill S (OP)]

Fermions are particles are you sure they can occupy the same point in space as another fermion or particle.

Obviously, I don’t know what Pete had in mind, but could you be extrapolating the Pauli exclusion principle beyond its scope?
I think it says that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum same state at the same time. I would interpret this as saying that two fermions with different characteristics, e.g. two electrons in a different spin state could be in the same quantum state at the same time.

 Does that mean that they are in exactly the same place at the same time?  I don’t know, but I would be inclined to defer to Pete on that.

One thought, though; how would the uncertainty principle influence our ability to measure their exact location at a precise time?   

[Bill S (OP)]

A related concept (looking through the other end of the telescope): Can time disappear?

This is subject to the same proviso as is the original question; namely, how do you define time?

If time is just a measure of change, the question should be: can change "disappear"?

[Colin2B]

So can Fermions

Fermions are particles are you sure they can occupy the same point in space as another fermion or particle.

Bosons are particles as well. Yes, @PmbPhy  is sure, it’s just that there is a limit to the number which is not so with bosons.

How would you answer it ?

I wouldn’t, because I’m not claiming all points in space are connected 
I was coming from the viewpoint that your answer is similar to @jeffreyH  asking how a car can move and you saying 2 can fit in a garage. However, you might ask him to expand on his question.

Space does not exist inside a theoretical wormhole. Can time exist inside a wormhole like an ER bridge.

Where did you see that? In the EPR papers both space and time exist in wormholes/bridges. They are constructed using intrinsic curvature of 4D spacetime, that’s how they can be derived from GR, Einstein wasn’t proposing additional dimensions.

[guest45734]

Where did you see that? In the EPR papers both space and time exist in wormholes/bridges. They are constructed using intrinsic curvature of 4D spacetime, that’s how they can be derived from GR, Einstein wasn’t proposing additional dimensions.

I may have been watching too much star trek.
Yes the EFE were formed originally in 4 dimensions but many people have explored additional dimensions.

Passing through a wormhole via the singularity inside a BH to another space/world, implies you are not travelling in normal space time. To keep the wormhole open it requires exotic matter, which rather than attracting needs to repel just like what dark energy does causing the continued expansion of space time. Popolawski and others have explored the idea that our universe is a WH existing inside a BH.

[jeffreyH]

Things move. We know that. If all particles were entangled by being connected together then all their fields must be connected together. This means that all the forces would be evenly distributed everywhere. So that no impetus can be given to anything to make it move. This can apply to many worlds, extra dimensions and a host of other propositions. The imagination can be a dangerous thing when unfettered.

[guest45734]

Things move. We know that. If all particles were entangled by being connected together then all their fields must be connected together. This means that all the forces would be evenly distributed everywhere. So that no impetus can be given to anything to make it move. This can apply to many worlds, extra dimensions and a host of other propositions. The imagination can be a dangerous thing when unfettered.

As I pointed to Colin above, and he agreed with, the likelihood of entangled particles appearing out of the BB are very slim to zero, particles decohere very easily, and when they are v hot they aint going to be entangled. All things are fields, a field can exist every where at once, as can an ER bridge output. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Where did you see that? In the EPR papers both space and time exist in wormholes/bridges.

Do you have a citation for the above statement, how can space exist in a wormhole when it allows you to step around space, how can time exist when entry and exit is virtually instantaneous regardless of distance?

[Bill S (OP)]

  how can space exist in a wormhole when it allows you to step around space

Isn't that just conjecture?

  how can time exist when entry and exit is virtually instantaneous 

If it were virtually instantaneous, would that not involve a brief instant of time?

[Colin2B]

All things are fields, a field can exist every where at once,  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Although fields exist everywhere at once their value is not the same everywhere and everytime, for most locations their value is zero. The Higgs field is an exception.
I think you are misunderstanding what fields are.

The correct quotation is “A little learning is a dangerous thing”

how can space exist in a wormhole when it allows you to step around space, how can time exist when entry and exit is virtually instantaneous regardless of distance?

Entry and exit is not instantaneous.
See this for a layman’s overview of current thinking https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html

You seem to be introducing new theory speculation and a degree of misunderstanding into these threads and it would be best to continue the conversation there rather than causing confusion here. Although there is a great deal of speculation regarding extra dimensions it is worth bearing in mind that mathematical treatments using higher dimensions usually don’t mean what might be interpreted as extra physical dimensions.

If it were virtually instantaneous, would that not involve a brief instant of time?

Yes, and coming back to the OP there is another interesting example of incorrect interpretation of time. You will be aware that the spacetime interval shows the spacial dimensions as having the opposite sign as the temporal dimension. I have seen all sorts of misinterpretations of this; that time moves backwards relative to space, that if light is expanding outwards in a sphere then time is moving inward towards the center, etc. All these misinterpretations are due to a lack if understanding of what the spacetime interval is saying.

[guest45734]

Isn't that just conjecture?

The entire thread is conjecture is it not.

@Colin2B  All things are fields in QFT do you disagree with this statement. If you do agree with this statement, how do they not contain energy. 

back to the OP there is another interesting example of incorrect interpretation of time. You will be aware that the spacetime interval shows the spacial dimensions as having the opposite sign as the temporal dimension. I have seen all sorts of misinterpretations of this; that time moves backwards relative to space, that if light is expanding outwards in a sphere then time is moving inward towards the center, etc. All these misinterpretations are due to a lack if understanding of what the spacetime interval is saying.

I do not think the above is related to my ramblings unless you have misunderstood something, but I agree is it interesting how some some people view time and space

My view is becoming increasingly none orthodox, so I will stop posting now.

[Colin2B]

If you do agree with this statement, how do they not contain energy. 

I didn’t say they do not contain energy.

[Bill S (OP)]

Things move. We know that. If all particles were entangled by being connected together then all their fields must be connected together. This means that all the forces would be evenly distributed everywhere. So that no impetus can be given to anything to make it move. This can apply to many worlds, extra dimensions and a host of other propositions. The imagination can be a dangerous thing when unfettered.

I often think it was a shame that David Bohm’s youthful left-wing affiliation came to light at a time when his fellow countrymen were looking under their beds for “Commies”.  He could certainly have provided answers to most of these points, and might even have shown us how to unfetter our imaginations without too much risk, had he not been ostracised.   

[yor_on]

Dead cat, what do you mean by writing 'and when they (particles) are v hot they aint going to be entangled'
Why can't they be entangled then?